Obama's 3 ½ wars
OBAMA is the first African-American US President and also the first to inherit 3 ½ warsone volcanic (economy), two hot (Iraq and Afghanistan) and ½ simmering (Mexico).
Economic War
US financial sector's collapse last September helped Obama win the presidency. His priority is reviving the economy through reforms on jobs, housing and credit flows. Saving and/or creating jobs, of which 3.6 million were lost since December 2007, is the aim of the massive $787 billion package Obama approved on 17 February that "will invest in… energy, education, health care, and a new infrastructure… to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century." Most prominent US economists support this stimulus. Obama unveiled a $275-billion program on 19 February to help nine million homeowners facing foreclosure and increase availability of mortgages, since the housing mess was "…unraveling the middle class and the American Dream itself." The biggest problem is getting the banks to lend which means persuading them to sell their bad assets at an acceptable discount to the original value, thus minimizing their equity erosion and the need to raise new capital. To sweeten the deal and unfreeze credit, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced a public-private plan on 23 March to buy up to $2 trillion of bad loans and mortgage-related assets by offering investors up to 93% of the purchase price at cheap rates and little risk. Nobody knows if these programs will succeed. But if throwing money at a problem solves it, these measures should help. Otherwise, the world recession will worsen. Iraq War
Winding down an unpopular war helps Obama. He was prescient or lucky not to support the war and benefits from Bush's "surge" that has made withdrawal practicable by August 2010. So a war fought on false pretences humbling the younger Bush and scarring US reputation worldwide will, unlike Vietnam, be brought to an honourable end. Afghanistan War
During his campaign, Obama criticized Bush's Afghan policy as "unfocused" (bringing democracy) and allocating insufficient resources (men and money). On 26 March, Obama announced his Afghan policy whose aim is "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan" and allocated more money and men to achieve it. This aim is both interesting and odd. Interesting, because it is an undeclared war against the Pakistani state and the US, for the first time, is targeting a non-government viscerally anti-American organization with a bizarre ideology for military destruction. Odd, because senior CIA officials claimed on 2 February '09 that drones have "decimated" al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan (Tom Gjelten, intelligence and national security correspondent, National Public Radio). Does the aim then make sense? After all, a terrorist attack doesn't have to be executed by al-Qaeda personnel in Pakistan; 9/11 wasn't. Obama conflating Afghanistan with terrorism should resonate well with Americans since al-Qaeda is seared in the US psyche as the devil incarnate. But tacitly invoking the 9/11 syndrome is suspiciously close to what Bush did. Al-Qaeda's destruction may not end the Afghan insurgency. Talibans' resurgence arguably is based on Pakhtun nationalism on both sides of the Durand Line, fuelled by deprivation from power in Kabul that Pakhtuns consider their birthright. Pakhtuns regard NATO as an occupation force whose over-reliance on air bombings cause civilian casualties and alienate the population. Resisting them is a nationalist duty leavened by cultural values and a medieval obscurantism that sanctifies ousting the infidels. Pakhtuns' FATA sanctuary and assistance from their ethnic coreligionists makes uprooting the Taliban infrastructure difficult. Obama acknowledges that "the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region" can not be solved" solely through military means," but will require "diplomacy…and development." Obama is using the traditional carrot and stick strategy. The stick is deploying 21,000 extra GIs to Afghanistan including 4,000 from the elite 82nd Airborne to train the Afghan Army to take over security gradually beginning 2011. These troops will boost US strength to nearly 70,000. Other NATO members are providing 32,000 soldiers. "Afghanisation" is estimated to cost "up to" $20 billion over the next several years; by contrast, Afghanistan's budget is $1.1 billion. The exit strategy of "Afghanisation" resembles "Vietnamisation." The carrot involves sending aid workers to Afghanistan, pump $7.5 billion into Pakistan, increase diplomatic efforts including supporting a UN conference in Afghanistan on 31 March at The Hague (Iran will attend), and persuade Moscow, Beijing, and US allies especially NATO to do more. Obama's special envoy Richard Holbrooke's focus is to ensure Afghanistan doesn't become a terrorist safe haven rather than a democracy. He will try to wean away the "non-ideologically aligned" Taliban by dividing and conquering. Holbrooke plans a follow-up visit to Pakistan after The Hague conference where his "most important" task will be to investigate the ISI's "very disturbing" alleged links to the Taliban. Some ISI reshuffling is likely, but any replacement within the ISI may cause the Pakhtuns to reduce intelligence inflow about the Taliban. Incidentally, 2009 is DGFI (BDR), ISI (Taliban) and RAW (Mumbai) bashing season! Pakistan Army may not move big time against the Taliban with Indo-Pak relations being edgy, however it may renew operations in FATA under US pressure. The Army suffered in Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat, with soldiers' grumbling about Muslims fighting Muslims for US interests. Holbrooke's brief embraces Kabul/Islamabad. Successfully tackling the Taliban requires Delhi's involvement, given Islamabad's aspiration for "strategic depth" and qualms about Indian machinations in Afghanistan. This would mean reopening Kashmir. Obama now owns the Afghan war and he may fare better than his predecessors. Unlike the Vietnamese, Pakhtuns lack international patrons because of their odious ideology and pincer movements from both sides of FATA may impact their operational freedom. The Taliban and their Pakistani counterparts retaliate by fomenting violence inside Pakistan. The 27 March Peshawar mosque bombing and 30 March attack on the Lahore police academy are ominous. Americans face a long hard slog. Body bags will be a key determinant of the US commitment's intensity and durability. Too many dead GIs may sour the US public. It would be tragic if Afghanistan became a quagmire like Vietnam. Mexico's drug war
This two-year war between Mexico's government forces including 40,000 soldiers and rival drug cartels has seen 7,200 Mexicans killed since 2008. Border towns like Ciudad Juarez (opposite El Paso) and Monterrey (opposite San Diego) are under virtual martial law. The conflict originates from US consumers' insatiable $65 billion annual demand for illegal cocaine, heroin and marijuana. About 90% of the drugs pass through Mexico, with Mexican cartels in 230 US cities being the "biggest organized crime threat in US" (Justice Department report December 2008). The flip side is that 90% of the weapons seized are smuggled from the 6,600 licensed gun dealers in the American south. US constitutional right to bear arms fuels a vicious internal war in Mexico that has spilled into US. Bush and Obama have taken this drug war seriously. Bush passed the Merida Initiative, a $900 million package of training, military hardware, scanning technology and security database improvements. On 24 March, Obama said the Mexican drug cartels were "completely out of hand," praised Mexican President Calderón's courage "in taking (them) on," emphasised the war is a "shared responsibility" and the US has "to get its own house in order." Earlier that day, Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that 460 agents, more canine teams, X-ray equipment et al were sent to the border to interdict financial and weapons flow as the "first wave of things that will be happening." Washington's mounting concern is evident from Secretary Clinton's visit to Mexico on 26 March. Napolitano and Obama will follow in April. Iraq is cooling down. The economy, Afghanistan and Mexico is heating up. These protracted 2 ½ wars is more likely to worsen before improving. The author is a free lancer.
US financial sector's collapse last September helped Obama win the presidency. His priority is reviving the economy through reforms on jobs, housing and credit flows. Saving and/or creating jobs, of which 3.6 million were lost since December 2007, is the aim of the massive $787 billion package Obama approved on 17 February that "will invest in… energy, education, health care, and a new infrastructure… to keep us strong and competitive in the 21st century." Most prominent US economists support this stimulus. Obama unveiled a $275-billion program on 19 February to help nine million homeowners facing foreclosure and increase availability of mortgages, since the housing mess was "…unraveling the middle class and the American Dream itself." The biggest problem is getting the banks to lend which means persuading them to sell their bad assets at an acceptable discount to the original value, thus minimizing their equity erosion and the need to raise new capital. To sweeten the deal and unfreeze credit, Treasury Secretary Geithner announced a public-private plan on 23 March to buy up to $2 trillion of bad loans and mortgage-related assets by offering investors up to 93% of the purchase price at cheap rates and little risk. Nobody knows if these programs will succeed. But if throwing money at a problem solves it, these measures should help. Otherwise, the world recession will worsen. Iraq War
Winding down an unpopular war helps Obama. He was prescient or lucky not to support the war and benefits from Bush's "surge" that has made withdrawal practicable by August 2010. So a war fought on false pretences humbling the younger Bush and scarring US reputation worldwide will, unlike Vietnam, be brought to an honourable end. Afghanistan War
During his campaign, Obama criticized Bush's Afghan policy as "unfocused" (bringing democracy) and allocating insufficient resources (men and money). On 26 March, Obama announced his Afghan policy whose aim is "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually destroy al-Qaeda in Pakistan" and allocated more money and men to achieve it. This aim is both interesting and odd. Interesting, because it is an undeclared war against the Pakistani state and the US, for the first time, is targeting a non-government viscerally anti-American organization with a bizarre ideology for military destruction. Odd, because senior CIA officials claimed on 2 February '09 that drones have "decimated" al-Qaida's leadership in Pakistan (Tom Gjelten, intelligence and national security correspondent, National Public Radio). Does the aim then make sense? After all, a terrorist attack doesn't have to be executed by al-Qaeda personnel in Pakistan; 9/11 wasn't. Obama conflating Afghanistan with terrorism should resonate well with Americans since al-Qaeda is seared in the US psyche as the devil incarnate. But tacitly invoking the 9/11 syndrome is suspiciously close to what Bush did. Al-Qaeda's destruction may not end the Afghan insurgency. Talibans' resurgence arguably is based on Pakhtun nationalism on both sides of the Durand Line, fuelled by deprivation from power in Kabul that Pakhtuns consider their birthright. Pakhtuns regard NATO as an occupation force whose over-reliance on air bombings cause civilian casualties and alienate the population. Resisting them is a nationalist duty leavened by cultural values and a medieval obscurantism that sanctifies ousting the infidels. Pakhtuns' FATA sanctuary and assistance from their ethnic coreligionists makes uprooting the Taliban infrastructure difficult. Obama acknowledges that "the problem of Afghanistan, the Taliban, the spread of extremism in that region" can not be solved" solely through military means," but will require "diplomacy…and development." Obama is using the traditional carrot and stick strategy. The stick is deploying 21,000 extra GIs to Afghanistan including 4,000 from the elite 82nd Airborne to train the Afghan Army to take over security gradually beginning 2011. These troops will boost US strength to nearly 70,000. Other NATO members are providing 32,000 soldiers. "Afghanisation" is estimated to cost "up to" $20 billion over the next several years; by contrast, Afghanistan's budget is $1.1 billion. The exit strategy of "Afghanisation" resembles "Vietnamisation." The carrot involves sending aid workers to Afghanistan, pump $7.5 billion into Pakistan, increase diplomatic efforts including supporting a UN conference in Afghanistan on 31 March at The Hague (Iran will attend), and persuade Moscow, Beijing, and US allies especially NATO to do more. Obama's special envoy Richard Holbrooke's focus is to ensure Afghanistan doesn't become a terrorist safe haven rather than a democracy. He will try to wean away the "non-ideologically aligned" Taliban by dividing and conquering. Holbrooke plans a follow-up visit to Pakistan after The Hague conference where his "most important" task will be to investigate the ISI's "very disturbing" alleged links to the Taliban. Some ISI reshuffling is likely, but any replacement within the ISI may cause the Pakhtuns to reduce intelligence inflow about the Taliban. Incidentally, 2009 is DGFI (BDR), ISI (Taliban) and RAW (Mumbai) bashing season! Pakistan Army may not move big time against the Taliban with Indo-Pak relations being edgy, however it may renew operations in FATA under US pressure. The Army suffered in Waziristan, Bajaur and Swat, with soldiers' grumbling about Muslims fighting Muslims for US interests. Holbrooke's brief embraces Kabul/Islamabad. Successfully tackling the Taliban requires Delhi's involvement, given Islamabad's aspiration for "strategic depth" and qualms about Indian machinations in Afghanistan. This would mean reopening Kashmir. Obama now owns the Afghan war and he may fare better than his predecessors. Unlike the Vietnamese, Pakhtuns lack international patrons because of their odious ideology and pincer movements from both sides of FATA may impact their operational freedom. The Taliban and their Pakistani counterparts retaliate by fomenting violence inside Pakistan. The 27 March Peshawar mosque bombing and 30 March attack on the Lahore police academy are ominous. Americans face a long hard slog. Body bags will be a key determinant of the US commitment's intensity and durability. Too many dead GIs may sour the US public. It would be tragic if Afghanistan became a quagmire like Vietnam. Mexico's drug war
This two-year war between Mexico's government forces including 40,000 soldiers and rival drug cartels has seen 7,200 Mexicans killed since 2008. Border towns like Ciudad Juarez (opposite El Paso) and Monterrey (opposite San Diego) are under virtual martial law. The conflict originates from US consumers' insatiable $65 billion annual demand for illegal cocaine, heroin and marijuana. About 90% of the drugs pass through Mexico, with Mexican cartels in 230 US cities being the "biggest organized crime threat in US" (Justice Department report December 2008). The flip side is that 90% of the weapons seized are smuggled from the 6,600 licensed gun dealers in the American south. US constitutional right to bear arms fuels a vicious internal war in Mexico that has spilled into US. Bush and Obama have taken this drug war seriously. Bush passed the Merida Initiative, a $900 million package of training, military hardware, scanning technology and security database improvements. On 24 March, Obama said the Mexican drug cartels were "completely out of hand," praised Mexican President Calderón's courage "in taking (them) on," emphasised the war is a "shared responsibility" and the US has "to get its own house in order." Earlier that day, Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano confirmed that 460 agents, more canine teams, X-ray equipment et al were sent to the border to interdict financial and weapons flow as the "first wave of things that will be happening." Washington's mounting concern is evident from Secretary Clinton's visit to Mexico on 26 March. Napolitano and Obama will follow in April. Iraq is cooling down. The economy, Afghanistan and Mexico is heating up. These protracted 2 ½ wars is more likely to worsen before improving. The author is a free lancer.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments